Marriage and gay couples don't mix.

[shokhead]

Resident Loser, Sir TT, piece-it pete. I still see you all are still at it

I believe by throwing in other issues such as individual right or slavery, it make it harder to resolve this gay marriage thing. IMO, there might be some differences between individual rights vs group rights.

For example in our school system, we require Spanish speaking students to speak and write English in our school. So somebody could argue that since they are not allowed to speak or write Spanish in school, we are denying their rights. But in actuality we preserving the school system (no matter how inadequate it is) and its functionality. I mean they have every rights to speaker/write Spanish in their home or with friends, but if going thru USA schools, it have to be done in English.

How do you require them to speak and write english when all they know is spanish? How in a class of 25 do you teach them english when the other half already know it and the whole class needs spelling,math and so on. In other words,where's the time? The system is inadequate because of the student and parent. Its all there to learn, but unless you've been at a school to really see all the non-learning crap going on with students and parents,its a fricken mess. I say 35% is money and 45% is the parents/home. Also you can try to teach english at school but thats not what its meant to do as in another lang. They go home and its all spanish and the parents do not want them speaking english.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If marriage means the union of a man and woman, then that supposed equality is a myth.

I knew that already. Equality in this country has always been a myth. That is why the declaration of Independence means so little to me. Great words, idealistic, but pretty much worthless in its implemementation.

Come now, of course the gay lobby (which is becoming quite powerful, which makes sense, as they are on average much more sucessful than the overall population) represents a special interest. As it is, gays have become very accepted, even emulated and admired, in modern society.

Pete, let's face reality here. Gays are tolerated(as long as they stay in their place) not accepted. If they were accepted, then we would have no problem giving them equality. As far a being on the average more successful, this is definately true.

How can you call gays a special interest, and not call blacks, or hispanics the same? Blacks have a different skin tone than the majority, they had to fight for equal rights, and the hispanics the same. Why refer to them as special interest, when all they want is what is guaranteed to them as specified by the constitution. There is nothing all that special(as a human being, and an American) that they are asking for. If marriage is for a man and a woman, then what is so difficult to give their committed relationships the same benefits. What I see here is people using every vice to deny them something that by right they should have. They can't get marriage benefits because marriage is between a man and a woman, and then they stop right there. No let's see what we can do to equal this out, no we will call their committed relationships "unions" and give them the same benefits as married couples. Nothing of the sort, and no movement. It's much like with slavery, there was every excuse given to keep a racial group oppressed(the same which exist today) but no one wanted to move quickly to remedy this damnright awful situation.

How is stating the fact that it's up to us inflammatory language? Because the majority doesn't want gay "marriage"? American justice? Where else are criminals better protected, outside of criminal regimes? Where else can you sue city hall - and win? And self rule being group rule, I agree, but the alternative is anarchy or dictatorship, and I guarentee gays (and most decent folks) would NOT be better off under those choices.

Everyone in this country knows that calling any group "a special interest" is in fact demonizing them. Remember, the majority is not always right. The majority at one time was alright with seeing blacks raped. maimed, reduced to an animal, couldn't vote, couldn't go here, couldn't buy stuff there and so on.

The alternative to group rule is not anarchy or dictatorship. How about the novel idea of just plain following the constitition as it exist. Equal rights, justice for all Americans. The idea that keeping this business, or the alternative is worse is short sighted small minded thinking. This kind of thinking makes bad things worse.

Sir TT, that is exactly my point, although I can't imagine you've been treated too badly - being active on an audio board usually means a certain level of affluence. Soon whites will not be a majority in this country - no single race will be - then when human nature hasn't changed whose fault will it be?

According to census figures and trends, by year 2030 hispanics will be the majority(I got that from a fox new interview with a top guy from the feds census bureau. As far as my treatment, well, I have personally been treated like other minorities. My god parents(who partially raised me) which are black, told me some of the worst stories I have every heard in regards to racism. The mark it left on them is inescapeable. The stories they told me were something out of nazism. The level of physical and mental cruelity is just something I could not fathom. I guess what blows me away after hearing these stories, is how certain participants in this dicussion can so easily dismiss the horrors of bias, slavery and prejudice in the name of "it was in the bible". What was done here was exactly what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews. Americans do have the nerve to make Germany feel guilty about nazism


{quote]I didn't say we were born with it - although a case could be made[/quote]

It has already been researched. Racism, prejudice and bias are all learned/taught behaviors. No white child comes out of the womb with a bias against blacks.

- but what I was saying is, it's a normal human condition to be both predjudiced and/or a victim of same. T, I've been a student of history for over 25 years, and I can tell you with certainty that it's absolutely, positively, normal. I'm not saying it's right, quite the contrary, just calling a spade a spade. Our current society is a historical abberation.

You look at it as a abberation, I look at it as partial enlightenment. So based on your history, we are born racist, prejudiced, and oppressive? That would explain some of us, but what about the rest of us who believe that this is the practice of stupid, fearful, ignorant, uncultured idiots? Are we considered abnormal?

As far as American slavery being the worst kind that ever existed, well, nope, not by a long shot.

Tell that to the blacks that had to experience it personally. This was the only period of slavery where a RACIAL motivation was the key. . All other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations. They were inslaved for debt, their countries were conquered, or they vilolated the law of the time, at no other time in history were a certain RACE was picked out, kidnapped from their country, and openly sold as animals. If you can recite me another example, I stand correct.

Better than some, worse than others. Black folks where I work get the EXACT SAME heath care that I do.

The may get the same company sponsored benefits, but in the New England Journal of Medicine it has been reported that that blacks are not given the same quality of treatment, are not recommended the same quality of drugs, specialists, or receive the same quality of treatment when hosptalized. Having the same benefits, and the same quality of care is quite different you see.

I've worked at many jobs, and this has always been true. Granted, blacks labor under more, sometimes much more difficult circumstances than whites generally, no doubt.

A benefit of the days of open bias, prejudice and slavery, and something that must change or whites will find themselves in the same position that the people they oppress are in.

Consider how predjudice works in the real world. Blacks don't get hired easily for some jobs, but will fight equal oppretunity legislation if it means they'll lose jobs to Hispanics (California).

You are not just wrong on this account, you are dead wrong. Blacks and hispanic do not even apply for the same kinds of jobs. If there is any real competition, it is between whites and blacks, who usually apply for the same kinds of jobs. Here in California the blacks and hispanics are working together against what many here(minorities) believe is a battle against racist policies such as Prop 187 and 209 which were directed squarely at hispanics and blacks.

You yourself have been laying into "dead white guys" with more than a touch of disgust. Why? Real or imagined wrongs, evils, etc, it doesn't matter. All are examples of predjudice.

This is not prejudice at all. I don't dislike their skin color, I dislike their hypocrasy. The Declaration of independence states these words;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." The obvious omission of course, is that women were left out. And in actual practice, blacks, Native Americans, and other ethnic minorities were also excluded. In fact, the only ones included by the Founding Fathers were propertied white males. And the more property the better. So what we got was the same thing they had in europe, a ruling aristocracy, and the rest fending for themselves. So rather than telling the truth, the lied and gave false hope to all those that were at the time oppressed. A lie that continues today, and explains why it is still harder for all minorities, and in comparision rather easy for whites. This is why I have no respect for the "dead white guys" They were lying, deciteful men, that only men like them could respect. The same cruel trick was played again when Affirmative Action was created. It was supposed to help minorities by leveling the playing field for all. Who benefitted from AA, white females.

I'm not slamming those other countries. You keep making the argument that we're such a bad, horrible, country, because we won't include gays in our marriages.

We are a bad and horrible country because we don't honor our declaration of independence, we still have alot of bias and prejudice, and there is no reason for this the most advanced culture in history to be this way. We are honoring the our past mistakes with more mistakes, and history has proven this will blow up in our faces.

Just the same, regular Africans will continue to starve and get hacked to pieces by their comrades

Inspite of that, Africans love their country. I know quite a few of them who have gone to school here, and returned back to Africa. If it works for them, who are you to judge? Besides if they came here, they would be subject to racism and prejudice.

regular Arabs will continue to live in fear of the radicals killing them and beating/raping their women

Inspite of this many Arabs would prefer to live in the middle east than here. At least they don't have the FBI or the CIA spying on their mosques there. The women in the middle east apparently are comfortable with the role they play in Arab society, or we would be getting way more amnesty plea from the area of the world, and they would not mind throwing off their native clothing when they get here. Neither is happening, because I see plenty of Arab women covering their heads, and some in burkas(spl?). Radicals exist because of the relationships some arab countries have with us. If they didn't interact with us, their probably wouldn't be much for a radiacal to do.

and the Russians will continue to be ruled by the mob, up until they raise themselves up and kill the bad guys.

They need to start with their president. Russian are also not coming here by the droves.

Much of Central and South America are ruled by thugs of varying degrees of thuggery. Here, we are robbed of crooks of our own choosing .

I cannot argue with you here LOL!

[quote]And they're clamoring to get in.[/quote}

For financial reasons only. People from all over the world are willing to come here for a better financial life, not because of our morality or decency.(neither of which improves the quality of life for the average person). For the most part, the world considers us either morally bankrupt because of the widespread porn in our culture(arabs) or they think that we have taken something beautiful(the nude body) and turned it into something dirty and sexual(europeans). The asians are about to overtake this country financially in the coming years anyway, so I see no asians running to get into this country. The point, you may be overstating your point just a bit. The majority of people trying to get into this country continue to come from our southern border. The reasoning is financial only.

There are still folks like that, of every race and persuasion. However, in spite of all the horrible things we (which includes you, right?) have done, we are still the benchmark of freedom in the world.

First, you cannot include me as a doer of the horrible, as a person of color, I would fall more into the victim crowd, and place that does not give me any comfort whatsoever. Yes, we are the benchmark freedom in the world, but not for equality, or justice. I think even China has understood that, which is why we have made so little progress in changing their human rights condition despite many attempts. You cannot hold up America as a benchmark that others should follow if it is not a system that benefits everyone. Currently, the wealthy white benefit most, next the wealthy any race, and last the poor.

You see, everything is relative. Me and you, we can't undo what has been done. We can try to correct it, but it will never be perfect. You believe gay "marriage" is a stain. I believe abortion is a stain. We might disagree. Neither makes us more racist.

Actually I could care less whether you call it marriage or union, just make it equal. I do believe inequality is a stain. I believe that ANY form of bias or prejudice no matter which direction it comes from is a stain. I believe that our history of slavery, and the bias and prejudice that continues even today is a stain.

That flies in the face of every hopeful immigrant I've ever met (and I've met a few). Right now, on my street, I could introduce you to at least 5 folks who came here to escape oppession and, if not starvation, a bleak existence. They would NEVER bite the hand that feeds them. Most of them also vote.

I could point introduce you to a least a hundred that came here soley for the money. The were escaping poverty, lack of jobs, corrupt government and various other reasons. But the bottom line is, there here for the money. So please do not try and glorify this issue of immigration. The country is some, but not all of that!!

Do you really live here? You are willing to contribute to this travesty simply for money? How does that contribute to our moral atmosphere? Isn't it nice to go to work without being robbed by a gang of thugs - at work?

Well, ask that question to any Enron, World com, Tyco employee. They were robbed at work, and by a gang of thuggs at that A prime case of our morality!

There has been slavery that was more moderate than ours. There has been far, far worse, yes, absolutely, it's a fair comparison. And nope, it doesn't make it right. However, I don't see refusing to change marriage to suit gays slavery.

No Pete, but it is bias and prejudice, the same tools that made slavery possible. As far as a fair comparison, don't think so. No other slavery in history involved kidnapping a single race from their country, bringing them to a foreign country, buying and trading them like animals, raping their women, separating families, humiliation by public hanging, maiming, and pshychological destruction. Nothing that I can think of in history was that bad for a SINGLE RACE.

We actually see much eye to eye, though from our conversations on this issue many wouldn't believe it! But with the rise of minorities, or the fall of the majority, however one views it, rich white men will not be able to hold on to power forever, due to the vote. I'm sure rich blacks, latinos, orientals and arabs will be joining them looting our pockets in no time!!

Pete

Pete, I sincerely hope and pray that my people, black or asians DO NOT do the same thing that whites have done to them. If that is the case, I will be right back on this board telling everyone who will listen how stupid, ignorant, and shortsighted my race, the blacks, or the reigning oppressor is. I do not like prejudice, bias, or racism, I don't care who the perpatrator is, or what color or sexuality they are. I do hope by the time minorities become the majority, that we have all learn that bias, and prejudice helps no one, no time. That it will keep this potientally great country from ever seeing its real true value to the world, or even to its people. One think I most assuredly will not do is be apart of the problem rather than the solution.

[Resident Loser]

...it's gettin' smokey again...

"This was the only period of slavery where a RACIAL motivation was the key. All other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations."

Hmmm...Those two statements seem to be at odds with each other. First it was "...the ONLY(my emphasis) period where racial motivation was the key" and then you say "all other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations..." Am I missing something, some subtle reasoning on your part that establishes a difference?

Ask a Jew what he is and the most given answer is "a Jew"...not a German or a Pole or a Russian. Now is that a race? Is it a religion? Is it a nation? Depending on who you ask, the answer will be "yes". Other than some form of "indentured servitude" most slaves were non-native, of differing ethnic groups or religious affiliations...Jews were slaves in Egypt...at least it says so in Exodus.

Do you actually mean to infer that Jefferson, Adams or those of that group went over to Africa with a big net to capture slaves? Well, you cite "different races, religions and nations" but you leave out the most salient of differences...tribal. Rwanda ring a bell? Or maybe folks like Idi Amin? Or Hussein gassing his own people because they were of a different tribe or branch of Islam?

Black Africans captured and or killed other black Africans(for whatever reason), well before the Portuguese ever set foot on the continent...a proud tradition being carried out even today. They became a commodity used in trade with the Europeans. Period. Whatever may have evolved was a commercial enterprise...like it or not.

"...at no other time in history were a certain RACE was picked out..."

You go to the greengrocer for good veggies and the fishmonger for fresh seafood...so too you go to Africa for an abundant supply of slaves...there were people who were willing to "sell" and yes, there were those willing to buy; no ones hands are clean...but regardless of your personal bias, it was simply business...and good business at that...google "triangle trade" if you doubt me.

"...kidnapped from their country, and openly sold as animals.."

Well, not having been there, I'm not 100%, but it's a lot easier to buy from the wholesaler than to do your own hunting. Kidnapping? Maybe...a by-product of tribal dominance? More likely. And a slave market is a slave market...Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Memphis...a commodity no different from cattle...

Now, medical care...I can't get the same level of medical care as the folks with beaucoup bucks, can't fly off to the Mayo or some sanitarium in Zurich...money talks...the healhcare system is totally out of control...for everyone...that's one he!! of a special interest group!

Seems as though most minorities seek medical care from ERs...not PPs and we all know how good ERs can be. They should be the last choice except in absolute "emergencies". And other studies show that they aren't pro-active in their health needs, don't keep up with follow-ups, treatments and drug regimens. Drugs? Name brand or generic? Is that what you mean? If told to see a specialist, do they schedule a visit and keep the appointment? Who is REALLY to blame?

AND...you keep citing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as though they are nearly one and the same and carry the same weight...The constitution is the law of the land...the Declaration was an open letter to George lll, no more no less...and good King George could barely give a royal r@ts @$$ re: the landed gentry colonists much less slaves...

jimHJJ(...go get a library card and do some reading...)

[piece-it pete]

Resident Loser, Sir TT, piece-it pete. I still see you all are still at it

I believe by throwing in other issues such as individual right or slavery, it make it harder to resolve this gay marriage thing. IMO, there might be some differences between individual rights vs group rights.

For example in our school system, we require Spanish speaking students to speak and write English in our school. So somebody could argue that since they are not allowed to speak or write Spanish in school, we are denying their rights. But in actuality we preserving the school system (no matter how inadequate it is) and its functionality. I mean they have every rights to speaker/write Spanish in their home or with friends, but if going thru USA schools, it have to be done in English.

Smokey, keeping the thread on topic! Kinda . Must be training for management !

The problem is that the slavery/predjudice/rights thing is the basis of the pro-gay lobbys' argument. And Sir TT, I'm not saying you don't mean it - I know you do.

Your school thing is valid. Interestingly enough, the Hispanic/American community in California was for the ballot measure requiring English in schools - they know it's a must to succeed here.

Rights! According to the Constitution, all rights not specificly granted to the Federal gov't are reserved to the people - THE STATES. When judges overstep their boundries - it is tyranny. What's the word - ogilarchy?

What pisses me off the most about school nowdays is lies taught as fact 'cause the truth offends someone. I mean history specificly - school history books are 99% crap. How can we as a society learn from our mistakes (and successes) if we're not taught them, or worse yet taught boldfaced PC lies?

Check a textbook. It's that bad.

OK rant over . Back to the matter at hand.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

I knew that already. Equality in this country has always been a myth. That is why the declaration of Independence means so little to me. Great words, idealistic, but pretty much worthless in its implemementation.

Worthless? As Democracy spreads across the world? Not a myth, a goal. Words matter.

Pete, let's face reality here. Gays are tolerated(as long as they stay in their place) not accepted. If they were accepted, then we would have no problem giving them equality. As far a being on the average more successful, this is definately true.

Strange, I can't turn on the tv without seeing gays modeled and emulated.

How can you call gays a special interest, and not call blacks, or hispanics the same? Blacks have a different skin tone than the majority, they had to fight for equal rights, and the hispanics the same. Why refer to them as special interest, when all they want is what is guaranteed to them as specified by the constitution. There is nothing all that special(as a human being, and an American) that they are asking for. If marriage is for a man and a woman, then what is so difficult to give their committed relationships the same benefits. What I see here is people using every vice to deny them something that by right they should have. They can't get marriage benefits because marriage is between a man and a woman, and then they stop right there. No let's see what we can do to equal this out, no we will call their committed relationships "unions" and give them the same benefits as married couples. Nothing of the sort, and no movement. It's much like with slavery, there was every excuse given to keep a racial group oppressed(the same which exist today) but no one wanted to move quickly to remedy this damnright awful situation.

What oppression? We know that gays are more successful than the majority. And yes, any group that does not represent the whole is a special interest. From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: special interest
Function: noun
: a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests; especially : LOBBY

Everyone in this country knows that calling any group "a special interest" is in fact demonizing them. Remember, the majority is not always right. The majority at one time was alright with seeing blacks raped. maimed, reduced to an animal, couldn't vote, couldn't go here, couldn't buy stuff there and so on.

OK, I'll call it the gay lobby.

Please, tell me, what gov't group will be always right? The Judiciary? A dictator? Who?

The alternative to group rule is not anarchy or dictatorship. How about the novel idea of just plain following the constitition as it exist. Equal rights, justice for all Americans. The idea that keeping this business, or the alternative is worse is short sighted small minded thinking. This kind of thinking makes bad things worse.

OK, I want to be called poor for the gov't benifits. See, I just want equality !

Following the Constitution as it exists creates group (majority) rule.

According to census figures and trends, by year 2030 hispanics will be the majority(I got that from a fox new interview with a top guy from the feds census bureau. As far as my treatment, well, I have personally been treated like other minorities. My god parents(who partially raised me) which are black, told me some of the worst stories I have every heard in regards to racism. The mark it left on them is inescapeable. The stories they told me were something out of nazism. The level of physical and mental cruelity is just something I could not fathom. I guess what blows me away after hearing these stories, is how certain participants in this dicussion can so easily dismiss the horrors of bias, slavery and prejudice in the name of "it was in the bible". What was done here was exactly what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews. Americans do have the nerve to make Germany feel guilty about nazism

I have neither justified slavery nor said Ok 'cause it's in the bible. Only that it has existed since the beginning of time - just as it exists in the Middle East, China, and SE Asia today. Tell those kids (young boys and girls) forced into brothels that our slavery was worse than theirs!

The Final Solution is far different from American slavery. Slavery is basically theft of labor. Wanton cruelty is secondary (however real). Hitler was trying to exterminate the Jewish race. Do you really believe we're equal to or worse than the Nazis??

It has already been researched. Racism, prejudice and bias are all learned/taught behaviors. No white child comes out of the womb with a bias against blacks.

Weeeelllll, I understand what you're saying. But. If this were true, why isn't there ONE INSTANCE of a raceless society? I suppose what I'm saying is, whether inborn or by choice, racism is a facet of human nature.

You look at it as a abberation, I look at it as partial enlightenment. So based on your history, we are born racist, prejudiced, and oppressive? That would explain some of us, but what about the rest of us who believe that this is the practice of stupid, fearful, ignorant, uncultured idiots? Are we considered abnormal?

I'm not talking about impressions or the way we feel - I'm talking facts. A society that TRIES to correct these wrongs is a historical abberation.

And we ALL have our prejudices - you have repeatedly hammered on whites, dead or otherwise.

Tell that to the blacks that had to experience it personally. This was the only period of slavery where a RACIAL motivation was the key. . All other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations. They were inslaved for debt, their countries were conquered, or they vilolated the law of the time, at no other time in history were a certain RACE was picked out, kidnapped from their country, and openly sold as animals. If you can recite me another example, I stand correct.

If that's true, if you exclude nations conquered, slavery here wasn't racial because the Europeans (including Britain) had conquered African nations. Apples to apples - the Egyptians used the Jews - just off the top of my head.

The may get the same company sponsored benefits, but in the New England Journal of Medicine it has been reported that that blacks are not given the same quality of treatment, are not recommended the same quality of drugs, specialists, or receive the same quality of treatment when hosptalized. Having the same benefits, and the same quality of care is quite different you see.

If you look at it class by class, I bet big difference. Poor whites also do not get the same level of care as affluent ones - largely, though not entirely, because they do not go to the doctor.

A benefit of the days of open bias, prejudice and slavery, and something that must change or whites will find themselves in the same position that the people they oppress are in.

Could happen. Heck, it's more than likely someday, not because we did it but because it's human nature. Otherwise, it's vengeance, cruel and pretty. Hardly a trait of an enlightened age.

You are not just wrong on this account, you are dead wrong. Blacks and hispanic do not even apply for the same kinds of jobs. If there is any real competition, it is between whites and blacks, who usually apply for the same kinds of jobs. Here in California the blacks and hispanics are working together against what many here(minorities) believe is a battle against racist policies such as Prop 187 and 209 which were directed squarely at hispanics and blacks.

I know I read somewhere a coupla years ago that the Black folks working at the LA post office supported getting rid of affirmitive action 'cause they didn't want to give up jobs to Hispanics.

And if we want a colorblind society we'll need to be, well, colorblind. AA is the opposite.

This is not prejudice at all. I don't dislike their skin color, I dislike their hypocrasy. The Declaration of independence states these words;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." The obvious omission of course, is that women were left out. And in actual practice, blacks, Native Americans, and other ethnic minorities were also excluded. In fact, the only ones included by the Founding Fathers were propertied white males. And the more property the better. So what we got was the same thing they had in europe, a ruling aristocracy, and the rest fending for themselves. So rather than telling the truth, the lied and gave false hope to all those that were at the time oppressed. A lie that continues today, and explains why it is still harder for all minorities, and in comparision rather easy for whites. This is why I have no respect for the "dead white guys" They were lying, deciteful men, that only men like them could respect. The same cruel trick was played again when Affirmative Action was created. It was supposed to help minorities by leveling the playing field for all. Who benefitted from AA, white females.

It's prejudice 'cause you lump them all together based on skin color. There have been abolitionists from the very start. I myself am a damned Yankee .I have no doubt that a good few of the signers of the Declaration meant exactly what they said. BTW, I respect many of them. Does this make me "like them"?

And only taxpayers were allowed to vote (no taxation without representation) - landowners. Now, with sales tax, everyone pays taxes. If I was alive then, I wouldn't have the vote, because I don't own land.

We are a bad and horrible country because we don't honor our declaration of independence, we still have alot of bias and prejudice, and there is no reason for this the most advanced culture in history to be this way. We are honoring the our past mistakes with more mistakes, and history has proven this will blow up in our faces.

If history is the judge, we have done very well. Bias and prejudice will always be with us, whoevers' in charge, whatever culture or country. We handle it better than most. But to say this culture is a failure, to toss it in the garbage because we won't change the definition of marriage, is to destroy the best hope (however pitiful) of humanity at this date.

Inspite of that, Africans love their country. I know quite a few of them who have gone to school here, and returned back to Africa. If it works for them, who are you to judge? Besides if they came here, they would be subject to racism and prejudice.

Of course they love their country. Most do. I am no exception. And if their system is OK because it works for them, why is it so bad for us to keep marriage, to keep our system, if it works for us?

And they do come here - in droves.

Inspite of this many Arabs would prefer to live in the middle east than here. At least they don't have the FBI or the CIA spying on their mosques there. The women in the middle east apparently are comfortable with the role they play in Arab society, or we would be getting way more amnesty plea from the area of the world, and they would not mind throwing off their native clothing when they get here. Neither is happening, because I see plenty of Arab women covering their heads, and some in burkas(spl?). Radicals exist because of the relationships some arab countries have with us. If they didn't interact with us, their probably wouldn't be much for a radiacal to do.

Please tell me, why are they being spied on? They would rather be killed by their own? Under the taliban, if you had an unmarried daughter at home you had to fly a special flag over your house. To protect them?

Why is it OK for other societies to be able to rape, kill, and otherwise terrorise their own population right now, but horrible for the US to have slavery in its' past?

Their clothing is part of their culture. Here, they have a choice to wear it or not. There, they get beaten and stoned if they don't. That's because of their (highly lucrative) relationship with us? What about pre-oil?

They need to start with their president. Russian are also not coming here by the droves.

Yep, their KGB pres - but of course Stalin was much, much worse.

They are "coming to America", like so many others. Here in Cleveland we have a thriving, and growing, Russian population.

For financial reasons only. People from all over the world are willing to come here for a better financial life, not because of our morality or decency.(neither of which improves the quality of life for the average person). For the most part, the world considers us either morally bankrupt because of the widespread porn in our culture(arabs) or they think that we have taken something beautiful(the nude body) and turned it into something dirty and sexual(europeans). The asians are about to overtake this country financially in the coming years anyway, so I see no asians running to get into this country. The point, you may be overstating your point just a bit. The majority of people trying to get into this country continue to come from our southern border. The reasoning is financial only.

No Asians? Don't you live on the west coast? You didn't mention the average Arab dispises homosexuality, and would stone them to death.

We'll see about the Asians overtaking us, I remember Japan was the fear of the month before. They don't have free movement of capital.

First, you cannot include me as a doer of the horrible, as a person of color, I would fall more into the victim crowd, and place that does not give me any comfort whatsoever. Yes, we are the benchmark freedom in the world, but not for equality, or justice. I think even China has understood that, which is why we have made so little progress in changing their human rights condition despite many attempts. You cannot hold up America as a benchmark that others should follow if it is not a system that benefits everyone. Currently, the wealthy white benefit most, next the wealthy any race, and last the poor.

Our poor would be considered well off in most of China. As far as being a doer of the horrible, by using our country for financial gain regardless of beliefs you are allowing your taxes to continue our oppression. Perfection is a myth.

Actually I could care less whether you call it marriage or union, just make it equal. I do believe inequality is a stain. I believe that ANY form of bias or prejudice no matter which direction it comes from is a stain. I believe that our history of slavery, and the bias and prejudice that continues even today is a stain.

I'll say it: a gay union ISN'T marriage! That's what we're all arguing about. That is not prejudice, it is a fact. And if married couples get benifits that singles don't that is legalised discrimination against singles, no if, ands, or buts. No one should get special treatment, right?

I could point introduce you to a least a hundred that came here soley for the money. The were escaping poverty, lack of jobs, corrupt government and various other reasons. But the bottom line is, there here for the money. So please do not try and glorify this issue of immigration. The country is some, but not all of that!!

I don't doubt some came here for money. I think I speak for most Citizens when I say we don't want that type of person here. And I know immigrants that came here that believe more, and they are being proven right.

Well, ask that question to any Enron, World com, Tyco employee. They were robbed at work, and by a gang of thuggs at that A prime case of our morality!

Granted. But this is much different than a gas station owner having to pay extortion money!

No Pete, but it is bias and prejudice, the same tools that made slavery possible. As far as a fair comparison, don't think so. No other slavery in history involved kidnapping a single race from their country, bringing them to a foreign country, buying and trading them like animals, raping their women, separating families, humiliation by public hanging, maiming, and pshychological destruction. Nothing that I can think of in history was that bad for a SINGLE RACE.

I still disagree that calling gay hookups marriage is prejudice. And I think the Jews would have something to say about the balance of that paragraph. Heck history is replete with races that have actually been exterminated.

Pete, I sincerely hope and pray that my people, black or asians DO NOT do the same thing that whites have done to them. If that is the case, I will be right back on this board telling everyone who will listen how stupid, ignorant, and shortsighted my race, the blacks, or the reigning oppressor is. I do not like prejudice, bias, or racism, I don't care who the perpatrator is, or what color or sexuality they are. I do hope by the time minorities become the majority, that we have all learn that bias, and prejudice helps no one, no time. That it will keep this potientally great country from ever seeing its real true value to the world, or even to its people. One think I most assuredly will not do is be apart of the problem rather than the solution.

I believe you would be on them! I guarentee they WILL act at least as poorly, it's a very safe bet, a sure thing. It's human nature.

However, I still stand firm that changing word definitions does not equal human rights .

As always, a pleasure,

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Worthless? As Democracy spreads across the world? Not a myth, a goal. Words matter.

Definately worthless. If the spread of Democracy means some folks are free, and other are not, then the promise of Democracy is a myth. A goal is something that one reaches out for, I see no indication of that occuring even in this country. We have reached a certain point, and have basically frozen in place, or regressed slightly backwards.

Strange, I can't turn on the tv without seeing gays modeled and emulated.

What you see on TV is someones version of how a gays behave. If you think that is how all gays behave, then I got some news for ya. It ain't so! My neighbors, friends, and co-workers all live lives as normal as yours and mine. They go to work, school, church, drive their kids to school, babysit, work in the yard, attend neighborhood events just like anyone else. You wouldn't know that any of my gay friends are gay at all. They are just a masculine(and femine) as any straight person. Television versions of gays are pretty over the top and not very accurate.

What oppression? We know that gays are more successful than the majority. And yes, any group that does not represent the whole is a special interest.
From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: special interest
Function: noun
: a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests; especially : LOBBY

If the majority is keeping gays from getting equal rights, then they are oppressed. Financial success is not a accurate gage of equality, it just means they work harder than most. When they get every benefit as committed couples as straight couples then they will be what is considered successful
Based on your definition, blacks, latinos, asians, and the disabled are all special interest groups, with whites being the majority(sounds familar). If that is how we are going to identify Americans from races other than white(as special interest groups) then this is indeed a very sad era.

OK, I'll call it the gay lobby.

Its a shame you have to label any American, or group of Americans. And its a double shame they have to "lobby" for equal rights in a country that states that all men(meaning people) are created equal.

Please, tell me, what gov't group will be always right? The Judiciary? A dictator? Who?

I would think that nobody is always right, but the government and the Judiciary should be working to make any wrong right. Isn't our government job to serve the people?

OK, I want to be called poor for the gov't benifits. See, I just want equality !

If your not poor, you cannot be called poor. If you want benefits, make less than $12,000 a year, and have a family of four. Or become disabled.

Following the Constitution as it exists creates group (majority) rule.

I know.......

I have neither justified slavery nor said Ok 'cause it's in the bible. Only that it has existed since the beginning of time - just as it exists in the Middle East, China, and SE Asia today. Tell those kids (young boys and girls) forced into brothels that our slavery was worse than theirs!

Fear, ignorance, stupidity, and oportunism has also existed since the beginning of time, that would explain why slavery has had a long history.
Kids dragged into brothels don't get hung on trees, or have their genitals hacked off. They don't have dogs let loose on them, or squirted with high powered fire hoses. No, I think they may have it a little better off than the average black during slavery, or during the civil rights movement.

The Final Solution is far different from American slavery. Slavery is basically theft of labor. Wanton cruelty is secondary (however real). Hitler was trying to exterminate the Jewish race. Do you really believe we're equal to or worse than the Nazis??

First, Jews are not a race, it's a religion. Secondly we were equal or worse than the Nazi. They tried to destroy a religion, we tried(and almost succeeded) in destroying a race.

Weeeelllll, I understand what you're saying. But. If this were true, why isn't there ONE INSTANCE of a raceless society? I suppose what I'm saying is, whether inborn or by choice, racism is a facet of human nature.

As long as you have people that come from different places on the earth, have varied skin colors, different foods, customs, dialog etc, you will have a race of people. Since we all do not come from the same place, speak the same langauge, don't have the same skin color, customs, food etc, that is why we do not have a raceless society. It has already been proven through extensive research that prejudice/bias/racism is a learned/aught behavior, so based on that, it is not another facet of human nature, but a weakness of human nature.

I am not talking about impressions or the way we feel - I'm talking facts. A society that TRIES to correct these wrongs is a historical abberation.
And we ALL have our prejudices - you have repeatedly hammered on whites, dead or otherwise.

I disagree. History is replete with examples of how oppressed people have had their situation corrected, or partially corrected by their own actions, or by their oppressors. It happen in biblical days with the Jewish exodus out of Egypt. It happen with the early settlers coming to this country. It happen in South Africa, and it happened with slavery in this country. Their are enough examples to make this not abberant at all.
If you think for two seconds that I am prejudice against whites, you don't know me from Adams house cat. My grandmother is white, my best friend is white..wait, quite a few of my friends are white. What I have a prejudice against is hyprocasy, racism, oppression, stupidity, lack of equality, and the desire to maintain all of these at the expense of someone elses life.

If that's true, if you exclude nations conquered, slavery here wasn't racial because the Europeans (including Britain) had conquered African nations. Apples to apples - the Egyptians used the Jews - just off the top of my head.

Once again, Jews are not a race, they are a religion, so this doesn't count as an example. Secondly, the only people that were slaves in this country were black Africans, so indeed it was racial. Now if you can present to me another race that had a million slaves in this country by the 1800's then I am wrong. Apples and pickles plain and simple. Slavery was not introduced into this country as a result of a victory in war, the colonies were not at war with Africa, and the colonies were not exactly chummy with Europe either.

If you look at it class by class, I bet big difference. Poor whites also do not get the same level of care as affluent ones - largely, though not entirely, because they do not go to the doctor.

The New England Journal of Medicine stated that whites(the one who go to doctors)overall get better treatment, have access to better medicine, and Doctors recommend them to better quality specialist than they do blacks. This cuts accross class and social standing. It also stated that wealth whites got better care than wealthy blacks. So the quality of health care is soley based on race, and no other classification. To those that do not go to the doctor, it is impossible to include them in any stat's.

Could happen. Heck, it's more than likely someday, not because we did it but because it's human nature. Otherwise, it's vengeance, cruel and pretty. Hardly a trait of an enlightened age.

I do not think so. Hispanic(especially Mexicans) do not have a long history of domination as whites do. If they do, I don't think it is cruel nor petty. It's no worse than what European whites have been doing to other cultures all over this world. I think it is funny that you would call hispanics potential dominion over whites cruel and petty, but seem so casual in your comments about whites dominion over everyone else(it's human nature).

I know I read somewhere a coupla years ago that the Black folks working at the LA post office supported getting rid of affirmitive action 'cause they didn't want to give up jobs to Hispanics.

I think you have misunderstood what you read. Blacks have always, and will probably be always for AA. There isn't a large population of Hispanics employed by the post office, even in Los Angeles were the population of hispanics is about quadruple the population of blacks. Not saying there are no hispanics working for the post office, just not as many as there are blacks. As I stated earlier, hispanics and blacks do not usually compete for the same type of jobs.

And if we want a colorblind society we'll need to be, well, colorblind. AA is the opposite.

Please do not attack AA. We would not need it if whites didn't create the situation that made AA necessary. Before AA, whites (who were the majority, and in charge of everything) would not hire hispanics or blacks. They were shut out of higher education, couldn't get bank loans, couldn't rent apartments except if they were in the ghetto or barrio. When whites understand the concept of equality and colorblindness, then it would be okay to dispense with AA. We are a looooooong way from there. I think it is the height of hypocracy to point to AA as the problem instead of a solution.

It's prejudice 'cause you lump them all together based on skin color

Give me a friggin break Pete. I lumped them together because they were united in their beliefs. Unfortunately they just happened to be white and according to them blacks were animals. I cannot be prejudice against someone who lived more than three hundred years ago, that is illogical and rediculous.

. There have been abolitionists from the very start.

They were the minority, not the majority. And in many cases they were not very helpful when it meant they would have to sacrifice their social standing for their cause.

I myself am a damned Yankee .I have no doubt that a good few of the signers of the Declaration meant exactly what they said.

And how would you confirm such a notion, ask them?

BTW, I respect many of them. Does this make me "like them"?

That is a question that only you can answer for yourself.
[qoute]And only taxpayers were allowed to vote (no taxation without representation) - landowners. Now, with sales tax, everyone pays taxes. If I was alive then, I wouldn't have the vote, because I don't own land.[/Qoute]

Here is the problem, they didn't own the land. This land had people on it before they got here. That land belonged to those people, not the ones who came after. Did they pay the American Indians who were here first, nope!
To make the rule that only taxpayers could vote automatically set up a ruling aristocracy, something they were trying to escape from in Europe. This also guaranteed that they would hold onto power. How is that noble when you state that all men are created equal?

If history is the judge, we have done very well.

As a white male it is easy for you to say this. The blacks may have a different opinion.

Bias and prejudice will always be with us, whoevers' in charge, whatever culture or country

Do not agree. Some cultures have proven that they have a predisposition for the destruction and ruling of other cultures(Europeans). There is no proven history of the Chinese fighting with Europe, conquering them, and taking over their society. Africans never bothered Europeans, hispanic never attacked Europe. However Europeans have gone all over the globe destroying cultures, enslaving people, and claiming their lands.

. We handle it better than most

Once again as a white male this is easy for you to say. Black I am sure would not agree.

. But to say this culture is a failure, to toss it in the garbage because we won't change the definition of marriage, is to destroy the best hope (however pitiful) of humanity at this date.

No one is asking you to change the definition of marriage. What gays are asking is for equal rights and respect of their committed relationships. The best hope for humanity is to realize that equality for all is the only way this world will be able to progress forward. As long as one believes that it is normal, and perfectly natural to be bias, prejudiced, and racist, this world will continue to go to war, enslave, and eventually destroy itself.

Of course they love their country. Most do. I am no exception. And if their system is OK because it works for them, why is it so bad for us to keep marriage, to keep our system, if it works for us?

It doesn't work for "us". It works for straight people only, and everyone isn't straight. Only equality for all will work for "us".

And they do come here - in droves.

Can you point to any statistics to support this droves?

Please tell me, why are they being spied on?

They are being spied on because some folks believe that all arab males are terror suspects until proven innocent.

They would rather be killed by their own? Under the taliban, if you had an unmarried daughter at home you had to fly a special flag over your house. To protect them?

I am sure they would rather not be killed at all. The taliban doesn't exist anymore as they did in the past, so that is a decision I don't have make.

Why is it OK for other societies to be able to rape, kill, and otherwise terrorise their own population right now, but horrible for the US to have slavery in its' past?

People in their own country decide how they are going to treat their own. In this country we state that all men are created equal, and yet we had slavery, and contiue to have institutional racism in all sectors of our society.

Their clothing is part of their culture. Here, they have a choice to wear it or not. There, they get beaten and stoned if they don't. That's because of their (highly lucrative) relationship with us? What about pre-oil?

I am not sure I follow this answer.

Yep, their KGB pres - but of course Stalin was much, much worse.
They are "coming to America", like so many others. Here in Cleveland we have a thriving, and growing, Russian population.

We here is the bay area also have a thriving Russian population, but that doesn't mean they are coming here by the droves. When I think of by the droves, I am thinking mass exodus, and that is not happening in this case.

No Asians? Don't you live on the west coast? You didn't mention the average Arab dispises homosexuality, and would stone them to death.

I didn't mention asians because their immigration into this country is more on par with Europeans. However mexicans have the highest immigration figured to date.
Arabs also do not like porn, half of the movies we produce in America, and they don't particularly care for our government. Trust me, there is no shortage of gay arabs stoning or not.

We'll see about the Asians overtaking us, I remember Japan was the fear of the month before. They don't have free movement of capital.

In spite of the fact that they don't have free movement of capital, they stand a VERY good chance of overtaking us. We have priced ourselves out of the manufacturing sector, and we have a HUGE trade gap with them. Manufacturing products is what made this country the powerhouse that it is. China we enjoy the same progress as we did. The Chinese are very good at packaging and producing product, and American companies are just chompin at the bit to get access to the chinese consumer. To under estimate them would be foolish and shortsighted.

Our poor would be considered well off in most of China. As far as being a doer of the horrible, by using our country for financial gain regardless of beliefs you are allowing your taxes to continue our oppression. Perfection is a myth.

You cannot effective compare our poor to another financial situation in other countries, that is a apple and orange proposition. Since we do not have the option of paying, or not paying taxes, or control how the money is disbursed, your point is pointless.

I'll say it: a gay union ISN'T marriage!

They would disagree with that. To them they are married. They are just as committed as straight couples are. While our law doesn't include them as married, their relationships should not be devalued like they currently are. Once again, a committed gay union should have the same rights as committed straight couples.

That's what we're all arguing about. That is not prejudice, it is a fact. And if married couples get benifits that singles don't that is legalised discrimination against singles, no if, ands, or buts. No one should get special treatment, right?

It is discrimination. Discrimination is formed out of prejudice, the two are undoubtably connected. I am all for cancelling all federal and state benefits that married couples get, especially if they are the only ones getting them. So I do agree with you last point.

I don't doubt some came here for money. I think I speak for most Citizens when I say we don't want that type of person here. And I know immigrants that came here that believe more, and they are being proven right.

Its not up to you to decide what type of people come here, and you certainly cannot make demands on anyone motivation. If you expect everyone to come here with the pie in the sky perspective that you have about this country, then you are going to be very dissappointed. Some people just want to come here for a better life. Most come here totally unprepared for the kind of bias and prejudice this country is so well known for.

I still disagree that calling gay hookups marriage is prejudice.

Pete would you consider your relationship a hookup? If not then it is not cool to devalue someone elses relationship just because you don't like it. It not really that hard to show SOME respect, right?

[qoute] And I think the Jews would have something to say about the balance of that paragraph.[/quote]

They couldn't disagree with me, they are not a race but a religion.

Heck history is replete with races that have actually been exterminated.

Please cite me examples

I believe you would be on them! I guarentee they WILL act at least as poorly, it's a very safe bet, a sure thing. It's human nature.

Totally disagree. There is no way you can make that guarantee unless you can predict the future. Hispanics may surprise you. Have you ever heard of Mexico attacking anyone just to take their land, or enslaved the native people. While Mexico may have a class bias, they do not have a race one.

However, I still stand firm that changing word definitions does not equal human rights .
As always, a pleasure,
Pete

You are right, a change in word defination does not equal human rights. But a change in attitude does. That could lead to a change in behavior, better understanding, a perhaps a desire to truly achieve equal rights for everyone.

It is amazing to me that this thread has gone on for 3 pages, we have established that inequality exist on the subject, but I have not heard one positive suggestion from you how to remedy the inequality. It's as if you recognized the bias, and do not care that it exists because it doesn't effect you. What if the bias was turned around and all white males found themselves behine the trigger, or all straight people did(I sure in the heck wouldn't like it), would you try and find a solution then? This apathy towards bias is not a sign of a forward moving society, it is business as usual in America. If your unwillingness to come to a resolution of this issue is typical of most Americans, the only thing that will come of it is more protest, more riots, and more desention. We already have enough of all three already without more coming.

[Resident Loser]

..."First, Jews are not a race, it's a religion. Secondly we were equal or worse than the Nazi. They tried to destroy a religion, we tried(and almost succeeded) in destroying a race."

Since your first premise is incorrect, everything that follows.etc. etc. etc.

Check out this(and other sites by doin' a GOOGLE on judaism):

www.fastload.org/ju/Judaism.html

In a nutshell...Judaism is the religion and Jew is the race or nation and, in the context of disrimination laws, so says the U.S. Supreme Court...

And with regard to some other statements you made, why not check out "vivisection" and "experimental surgeries" relative to Nazism...

Additionally, "...destroying a race..."? That infers mass-extiction...not nobody, not nowhere, not even Adloph Hitler(even though most of his target was within Europe) could accomplish that!

Also, and while you completely ignore my outline of slavery vis a vis world history, the underground railroad transported slaves to Canada and free-states AND a segment of the abolishionist movement established Liberia and it's capital Monrovia to repatriate those who wished to return to Africa...so much for "...destroying a race..." It seems as though modern Liberia is tyring to accomplish some of that however...not to mention recent history in Rwanda...talk about bias and prejudice...extreme prejudice...

Whether or not you read and/or understand my posts is irrelevant...you will most likely continue to exhibit a blinkered and biased propensity to advance your own agenda. My purpose is to call you on some of your statements and allow anyone interested enough to search for more a "factual" presentation.

jimHJJ(...BTW, 'gay" stereotypes, and others, DO have a basis in fact...like it or not...)

[piece-it pete]

Hmmm...

T, I'll start by stating unequivocally that slavery is wrong, and racism is wrong. I was the first to mention that American slavery may be worse than some other types, because skin color made it either a) more difficult to assimilate, or b) easier to keep seperate, depending on ones' point of view.

I also believe that the US would not exist in its' current form if it wasn't for slaves, 'cause the Founding Fathers KNEW what the folks in power did to keep people down, and wanted to make DARN SURE it wouldn't happen to them. Therefore, the most sucessful democracy the world has ever seen, that is an example and template for the world, could not have happened without black folks - they have a founding claim.

Cold comfort for past and present racism, yes, I know. But still, it is something important.

As a member of the white majority I will state truthfully that I occasionally need reminders of the evils of racism. Because we are not directly connected to the receiving end of it we forget the permanent scars left. We see it in a historical context, while there is lingering (or worse) effects happening right now.

If I state what I see to be a fact, that does not mean I agree that it is good, only that it is. I don't care if the truth offends anybody, I will call a spade a spade until the thought police take me away. Freedom of speech - it's a good thing.

It doesn't mean I'm right all the time, though .

If race is the important thing with slavery then it does not apply to this issue anyway.

Bias is not in itself a bad thing. I am biased against government kickbacks. You might be biased against expensive cables. I am biased against gays in this way: I think it is wrong. But ok, I'm not going to throw them in jail or beat them, or even shun them. I too know decent gay guys. Their sin is no worse than mine.

I assure you that am not going to call a spade (in this case marriage) something it's not because someone feels left out or wants financial benefits. Because those benefits, originally done to help support the institution of marriage (which is a framework for raising kids), reduce taxes paid by those folks, it is in affect subsidizing those folks and I'M not going to subsidize gay unions. If I can help it. And in this country (at least for now) I'm allowed to speak and vote on my beliefs (unlike most of the world, including Europe). So is every minority and immigrant citizen. I feel fortunate that the vast majority agree with me on this issue.

Definately worthless. If the spread of Democracy means some folks are free, and other are not, then the promise of Democracy is a myth. A goal is something that one reaches out for, I see no indication of that occuring even in this country. We have reached a certain point, and have basically frozen in place, or regressed slightly backwards.

It will never happen completely. Perfection is a myth.

Is it better that all be enslaved or some free? Since North Korea is enslaved does that mean that Britain should be too? And how do you think the Iraqis feel about the Declaration now?

What you see on TV is someones version of how a gays behave. If you think that is how all gays behave, then I got some news for ya. It ain't so! My neighbors, friends, and co-workers all live lives as normal as yours and mine. They go to work, school, church, drive their kids to school, babysit, work in the yard, attend neighborhood events just like anyone else. You wouldn't know that any of my gay friends are gay at all. They are just a masculine(and femine) as any straight person. Television versions of gays are pretty over the top and not very accurate.

It doesn't matter if tv portrays them correctly or not - it shows our cultures' acceptance of them.

If the majority is keeping gays from getting equal rights, then they are oppressed. Financial success is not a accurate gage of equality, it just means they work harder than most. When they get every benefit as committed couples as straight couples then they will be what is considered successful
Based on your definition, blacks, latinos, asians, and the disabled are all special interest groups, with whites being the majority(sounds familar). If that is how we are going to identify Americans from races other than white(as special interest groups) then this is indeed a very sad era.

Tax breaks for the blind is actually oppression of the sighted? It goes to follow by your definition of oppression.

And yes, even whites can be a special interest group - look at the definition again. When the gays have a lobbying office in Washington, and are actively lobbying to have their laws passed, what should I call it? The gay.... group of people desiring to have gay laws passed?

Its a shame you have to label any American, or group of Americans. And its a double shame they have to "lobby" for equal rights in a country that states that all men(meaning people) are created equal.

Is "dead white men" a label?

I would think that nobody is always right, but the government and the Judiciary should be working to make any wrong right. Isn't our government job to serve the people?

Within their Constitutional bounds. All else is tyranny.

If your not poor, you cannot be called poor. If you want benefits, make less than $12,000 a year, and have a family of four. Or become disabled.

And I say..... If you are not man and wife, you cannot be called man and wife.

Fear, ignorance, stupidity, and oportunism has also existed since the beginning of time, that would explain why slavery has had a long history.

They are all tied together. This is what I mean when I talk about the depravity of human nature.

Kids dragged into brothels don't get hung on trees, or have their genitals hacked off. They don't have dogs let loose on them, or squirted with high powered fire hoses. No, I think they may have it a little better off than the average black during slavery, or during the civil rights movement.

The slaves in the US might have had it better or worse in some situations. But to say a kid being multiply raped and beaten every day is worse than being squirted with a fire hose - I don't buy it.

First, Jews are not a race, it's a religion. Secondly we were equal or worse than the Nazi. They tried to destroy a religion, we tried(and almost succeeded) in destroying a race.

Already addressed, thanks RL!

As long as you have people that come from different places on the earth, have varied skin colors, different foods, customs, dialog etc, you will have a race of people. Since we all do not come from the same place, speak the same langauge, don't have the same skin color, customs, food etc, that is why we do not have a raceless society. It has already been proven through extensive research that prejudice/bias/racism is a learned/aught behavior, so based on that, it is not another facet of human nature, but a weakness of human nature.

That weakness is sure normal, right or wrong. I'm not saying that makes it OK. Let me ask it differently: If people are not born racist, then why is there no culture in all of history that has not been racist?

I disagree. History is replete with examples of how oppressed people have had their situation corrected, or partially corrected by their own actions, or by their oppressors. It happen in biblical days with the Jewish exodus out of Egypt. It happen with the early settlers coming to this country. It happen in South Africa, and it happened with slavery in this country. Their are enough examples to make this not abberant at all.
If you think for two seconds that I am prejudice against whites, you don't know me from Adams house cat. My grandmother is white, my best friend is white..wait, quite a few of my friends are white. What I have a prejudice against is hyprocasy, racism, oppression, stupidity, lack of equality, and the desire to maintain all of these at the expense of someone elses life.

By their own actions, yes.

But by their oppressors? The Egyptians were FORCED to allow the Jews to leave, then chased them in an attempt to kill them. The early settlers were not being helped by their oppressors, but running from them. South African whites gave up power because they knew they had no choice - "The blacks are going to run us into the sea". Even the south in this country was forced to give up slavery at the end of a gun. And as Lincoln said, if I can save the Union by keeping slavery, I will do it, If I can save the Union by getting rid of slavery, I will do it. It is an abberation - anyone who reads history can verify this.

Not exactly prejudiced against whites. Are you willing to say you have NO prejudices? I'm not - I've learned that I do in spite of myself.

Once again, Jews are not a race, they are a religion, so this doesn't count as an example. Secondly, the only people that were slaves in this country were black Africans, so indeed it was racial. Now if you can present to me another race that had a million slaves in this country by the 1800's then I am wrong. Apples and pickles plain and simple. Slavery was not introduced into this country as a result of a victory in war, the colonies were not at war with Africa, and the colonies were not exactly chummy with Europe either.

Ahp! You said: "This was the only period of slavery where a RACIAL motivation was the key. . All other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations. They were inslaved for debt, their countries were conquered, or they violated the law of the time..."

Well the Europeans conquered much of Africa, including Great Britain, and it was Great Britain who allowed slavery to grow in this county - not the USA - so therefore the slaves came from conquered nations, mostly. However American slavery was racial, absolutely.

The New England Journal of Medicine stated that whites(the one who go to doctors)overall get better treatment, have access to better medicine, and Doctors recommend them to better quality specialist than they do blacks. This cuts accross class and social standing. It also stated that wealth whites got better care than wealthy blacks. So the quality of health care is soley based on race, and no other classification. To those that do not go to the doctor, it is impossible to include them in any stat's.

I would call this hidden racism, but it's lessening over the years, cause the one color means more than any other - green . Those who do not go to doctors are included - via inclusion in fatalities and relapses and such, and the fact that they go to the doctors eventually, or emergency rooms. Most of the poor do not practice preventitive medicine.

I do not think so. Hispanic(especially Mexicans) do not have a long history of domination as whites do. If they do, I don't think it is cruel nor petty. It's no worse than what European whites have been doing to other cultures all over this world. I think it is funny that you would call hispanics potential dominion over whites cruel and petty, but seem so casual in your comments about whites dominion over everyone else(it's human nature).

So, it's awful the US has slavery in it's history, and the Declaration is a hollow lie 'cause of gay prejudice and lingering racism, but the violent, bloody history of Mexico doesn't count? What's going on in southern Mexico right now?

I consider any revenge cruel and petty - it's sure not enlightned! I wasn't specifying Mexicans. This comes back to human nature - any student of history would expect revenge and be very, very surprised if it DIDN'T happen. Human nature is not limited to whites. My recognition of the facts here does not make me "casual" towards them. I have spent many, many years studying history. Recognition of the facts, however unpleasant, makes ones' attempt to deal with the issues more likely to succeed.

I think you have misunderstood what you read. Blacks have always, and will probably be always for AA. There isn't a large population of Hispanics employed by the post office, even in Los Angeles were the population of hispanics is about quadruple the population of blacks. Not saying there are no hispanics working for the post office, just not as many as there are blacks. As I stated earlier, hispanics and blacks do not usually compete for the same type of jobs.

No, it was a case study during the AA ballot measure out in LA. I think it was newsweek, or US News?

Please do not attack AA. We would not need it if whites didn't create the situation that made AA necessary. Before AA, whites (who were the majority, and in charge of everything) would not hire hispanics or blacks. They were shut out of higher education, couldn't get bank loans, couldn't rent apartments except if they were in the ghetto or barrio. When whites understand the concept of equality and colorblindness, then it would be okay to dispense with AA. We are a looooooong way from there. I think it is the height of hypocracy to point to AA as the problem instead of a solution.

Hey this is what the whole world needs - plain talk. Seriously. I have argued the case for AA with many people for the reasons you have stated. This really underlines the complexity of "colorblindness". It's not just whites, although 'cause they've been in control the effect is the worst.

What gets white folks going is like this: The Cleveland Orchestra needed to improve it's racial makeup. No problem. But they DON'T CARE about skin color - they just want the best of the best.They don't care if one is bright purple. Solution: The musician auditions behind a screen. That's colorblind. But wait - they get sued by the NAACP. Doesn't that type of thing actually hurt the AA cause? And yes, I understand that the majority of minorities ( ) may understand this, but why didn't they speak up?

Give me a friggin break Pete. I lumped them together because they were united in their beliefs. Unfortunately they just happened to be white and according to them blacks were animals. I cannot be prejudice against someone who lived more than three hundred years ago, that is illogical and rediculous.

Let me assure you they were NOT united. It is a miracle the US came into being. Many, if not most, did not consider Blacks animals.

And if one is prejudiced against, say, Brazilians (lol), don't you think that person would look at a Brazilian writers' comments from 100 years ago with a prejudiced eye?

They were the minority, not the majority. And in many cases they were not very helpful when it meant they would have to sacrifice their social standing for their cause.

Yes, a minority, but probably bigger then you think. Many did not care for social standing - many were Christians first. Fearless. And they got enough power - eventually.

And how would you confirm such a notion, ask them?

You know, that's a silly statement. What are you basing your information on? The written word.

That is a question that only you can answer for yourself.

That was in response to your statement: "This is why I have no respect for the "dead white guys" They were lying, deciteful men, that only men like them could respect."

Here is the problem, they didn't own the land. This land had people on it before they got here. That land belonged to those people, not the ones who came after. Did they pay the American Indians who were here first, nope!

Which Indians? The 1st ones here, or the ones that took that tribes' land, or the 50 after that?

To make the rule that only taxpayers could vote automatically set up a ruling aristocracy, something they were trying to escape from in Europe. This also guaranteed that they would hold onto power. How is that noble when you state that all men are created equal?

I don't recall the European gov't giving away land to regular folks. And if that's true, when did we defeat that new aristocracy and set up our current gov't?

As a white male it is easy for you to say this. The blacks may have a different opinion.

Which country handles it better?

Do not agree. Some cultures have proven that they have a predisposition for the destruction and ruling of other cultures(Europeans). There is no proven history of the Chinese fighting with Europe, conquering them, and taking over their society. Africans never bothered Europeans, hispanic never attacked Europe. However Europeans have gone all over the globe destroying cultures, enslaving people, and claiming their lands.

How many sub-cultures do you think exist in China? And southern Spain was Moorish for a looong time. Yes and what about Ghengis Khan. We were simply the first to develop the tools neccessary to do it on a worldwide scale. This doesn't jive with history.

Once again as a white male this is easy for you to say. Black I am sure would not agree.

This is not a racial viewpoint.

No one is asking you to change the definition of marriage. What gays are asking is for equal rights and respect of their committed relationships. The best hope for humanity is to realize that equality for all is the only way this world will be able to progress forward. As long as one believes that it is normal, and perfectly natural to be bias, prejudiced, and racist, this world will continue to go to war, enslave, and eventually destroy itself.

If no ones' asking me to change the definition of marriage, what on earth are we talking about?

Interesting that other cultures in the past that embraced the gays were on their way out - they destroyed themselves.

It doesn't work for "us". It works for straight people only, and everyone isn't straight. Only equality for all will work for "us".

Who is "us". It's ok for cultures all over the world to be rotten, dirty, violent and corrupt but if we don't OK gay "marriage" we're worse than them.

Can you point to any statistics to support this droves?

droves

plural noun

a large group, especially of people, moving towards a place
______

Is anyone going to deny we've got people beating our doors in?

They are being spied on because some folks believe that all arab males are terror suspects until proven innocent.

Nope, they're being spied on because people that hide or are encouraged by that community have killed our citizens.

I am sure they would rather not be killed at all. The taliban doesn't exist anymore as they did in the past, so that is a decision I don't have make.

Right! Because WE made the decision to take them out. Which everybody screamed about, and "showed" our evil intent.

People in their own country decide how they are going to treat their own. In this country we state that all men are created equal, and yet we had slavery, and contiue to have institutional racism in all sectors of our society.

It is not institutional anymore, only private. A black guy, one of my adult teachers reiterated the statement to me, "you can't legislate a mans' heart".

We here is the bay area also have a thriving Russian population, but that doesn't mean they are coming here by the droves. When I think of by the droves, I am thinking mass exodus, and that is not happening in this case.

OK.

I didn't mention asians because their immigration into this country is more on par with Europeans. However mexicans have the highest immigration figured to date.
Arabs also do not like porn, half of the movies we produce in America, and they don't particularly care for our government. Trust me, there is no shortage of gay arabs stoning or not.

So do you think censorship should be used to correct Americas' image abroad? And those gays are living HERE. Why not at home?

In spite of the fact that they don't have free movement of capital, they stand a VERY good chance of overtaking us. We have priced ourselves out of the manufacturing sector, and we have a HUGE trade gap with them. Manufacturing products is what made this country the powerhouse that it is. China we enjoy the same progress as we did. The Chinese are very good at packaging and producing product, and American companies are just chompin at the bit to get access to the chinese consumer. To under estimate them would be foolish and shortsighted.

Excellent. I don't underestimate them. But I'm not scared either. Because they are ruled by cartels their system will calcify. Ours will not as long as we can close some businesses and open new ones. And manufacturing jobs in this country have been declining for 50 years - we've moved past that stage a while back.

You cannot effective compare our poor to another financial situation in other countries, that is a apple and orange proposition. Since we do not have the option of paying, or not paying taxes, or control how the money is disbursed, your point is pointless.

Yes, but you do have the option of living here in the first place. We have a saying among States, "voting with your feet". If we don't like the gov't in one state we are free to move to another. If we really believe the US is an awful blight on the face of the earth why would we continue living here, given the choice, knowing you are contributing to it?

They would disagree with that. To them they are married. They are just as committed as straight couples are. While our law doesn't include them as married, their relationships should not be devalued like they currently are. Once again, a committed gay union should have the same rights as committed straight couples.

They can pretend to be married if they wish. I am willing to give them all the rights of committed straight couples - but not married ones.

It is discrimination. Discrimination is formed out of prejudice, the two are undoubtably connected. I am all for cancelling all federal and state benefits that married couples get, especially if they are the only ones getting them. So I do agree with you last point.

So protecting kids should not be a State concern, but giving gays marriage should be?

Its not up to you to decide what type of people come here, and you certainly cannot make demands on anyone motivation. If you expect everyone to come here with the pie in the sky perspective that you have about this country, then you are going to be very dissappointed. Some people just want to come here for a better life. Most come here totally unprepared for the kind of bias and prejudice this country is so well known for.

Oh yes it is up to me and like-minded Citizens - this is a Democracy. And yes we can make demands on their motivation. And many immigrants have that "pie-in-the-sky perspective". And I'll say it again - why are you contributing to this travesty, this "bias and prejudice this country is so well known for", if you don't have to?

Pete would you consider your relationship a hookup? If not then it is not cool to devalue someone elses relationship just because you don't like it. It not really that hard to show SOME respect, right?

Unless they're dead white guys. But OK, I will call them "relationships".

They couldn't disagree with me, they are not a race but a religion.

Discussed.

Please cite me examples.

Try google. If that doesn't work (I'd be amazed) try a library. They used to burn cities to the ground, kill all inhabitants, and salt the ground so nothing would grow.

Totally disagree. There is no way you can make that guarantee unless you can predict the future. Hispanics may surprise you. Have you ever heard of Mexico attacking anyone just to take their land, or enslaved the native people. While Mexico may have a class bias, they do not have a race one.

Honestly T, I hope they do surprise me. Where are the Aztec, Incas? Why didn't the Mexicans assimilate the Apache indians? Why was Mexico called an Empire, until fairly recently?

You are right, a change in word defination does not equal human rights. But a change in attitude does. That could lead to a change in behavior, better understanding, a perhaps a desire to truly achieve equal rights for everyone.

It is amazing to me that this thread has gone on for 3 pages, we have established that inequality exist on the subject, but I have not heard one positive suggestion from you how to remedy the inequality. It's as if you recognized the bias, and do not care that it exists because it doesn't effect you. What if the bias was turned around and all white males found themselves behine the trigger, or all straight people did(I sure in the heck wouldn't like it), would you try and find a solution then? This apathy towards bias is not a sign of a forward moving society, it is business as usual in America. If your unwillingness to come to a resolution of this issue is typical of most Americans, the only thing that will come of it is more protest, more riots, and more desention. We already have enough of all three already without more coming.

I do recognise the bias. I do not believe it to be wholly unfounded. It does effect me, which is partly why I'm writing this book with you .

I believe rioters should be shot. Not protesters, though . Just because someone doesn't get their way doesn't give them the right to riot. There is a resolution - an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage. This is what I want.

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hmmm...

I also believe that the US would not exist in its' current form if it wasn't for slaves, 'cause the Founding Fathers KNEW what the folks in power did to keep people down, and wanted to make DARN SURE it wouldn't happen to them. Therefore, the most sucessful democracy the world has ever seen, that is an example and template for the world, could not have happened without black folks - they have a founding claim.

They have a founding claim that goes unrecognized to this day. Here is what their founding claim gets them.
Blacks get lower quality health care than any other race in the country regardless of economic status.
Black males get pegion holed into special education classes at five time the rate that white kids do. And that is without any evidence of any special needs, but is based on the lack of understanding of the black culture(white teachers dominate our education system)
Blacks get larger sentences in the justice system than whites even if the crime is exactly the same. Prosecuters(majority white) are more willing to accept a plea bargain from a white, than from a black(national bar association)
Blacks are more likely to be rejected or turned away from renting in certain areas. Here in the bay area, it was found that blacks trying to rent in Alameda were rejected 70% of the time, before an application was even received. In quite a few cases in this study, the landlords claimed the apartments were rented out already, but when a white guy(or woman)showed up, they took them to see the vacant apartments, and offered an application for these apartments.
Blacks are discriminated against in hiring practices based on their names on resumes, and after face to face interviews. My best friends sister who has been in the human resources field for years told me of a private system that employers, and employment agencies use to "filter" out blacks from other races. Certain black names are used as code words when employers describe what type of employees are not desireable. This notion was also supported by a 20/20 special done on how names can effect employment. During this particular example three black men and three black women sent out two sets of resumes. One with their original name(they all had african names) and one with commonly used white names. Everyone of the white names was selected for an interview, and everyone of the african names was rejected. The resumes had the exact same content. Blacks also typically make less money than their white counterparts, even while doing the same jobs. Blacks are less likely for promotion than whites even with the same experience and qualifications.
All of this is plain sad for what is dubbed as the greatest democracy in the world. It is even more sad for blacks who are said to have a founding claim in this country.

As a member of the white majority I will state truthfully that I occasionally need reminders of the evils of racism. Because we are not directly connected to the receiving end of it we forget the permanent scars left. We see it in a historical context, while there is lingering (or worse) effects happening right now.

Bias and racism are close relatives. The same pain that those feel from racism(blacks and other minorities) is the same pain as those who feel bias(gays in this country). We have fortunately learned that discrimination based on race is not cool, but we have yet to learn that bias based on sexuality(something we are born with by the way) is just as bad.

If I state what I see to be a fact, that does not mean I agree that it is good, only that it is. I don't care if the truth offends anybody, I will call a spade a spade until the thought police take me away. Freedom of speech - it's a good thing.

Freedom of speech is a good thing when it is a reality. We do not have free speech in this country unless you are a sheep repeating what everyone else is repeating. Just ask the college professor at Colorado University who has an opinion that goes contrary to what is norm here. They want him fired for his supposed "free speech".

It doesn't mean I'm right all the time, though .

None of us are, which is the reason why we shouldn't take such hard stances against what we don't understand.

If race is the important thing with slavery then it does not apply to this issue anyway.

Oh it applies alright. It applies in the form of bias and discrimination. Whether it is color of skin, sexuality, nationality, height, weight or whatever, discrimination is wrong wrong wrong.

Bias is not in itself a bad thing. I am biased against government kickbacks. You might be biased against expensive cables.

Bias in this form is not harmful to people.

I am biased against gays in this way: I think it is wrong. But ok, I'm not going to throw them in jail or beat them, or even shun them. I too know decent gay guys. Their sin is no worse than mine.

Your bias makes you part of the problem, and not the solution. And if you feel that it is wrong, then why don't you throw them in jail, or shun them. If you know decent gay guys, then why do you think what they do is wrong? This is a conflicted thought process if I ever saw one. They are wrong, but their sin is no worse than mine? Who said it was a sin for to guys to love each other physically and mentally? The bible? I don't think so my friend, it doesn't even directly address the issue like it does other commonly known sins.

I assure you that am not going to call a spade (in this case marriage) something it's not because someone feels left out or wants financial benefits.

Pete, I do not think the most finanacially successful group of people in this country are really looking for the financial benefits of marriage. How would you feel if you were left out of something? It doesn't feel very good, that I can tell you from experience.

Because those benefits, originally done to help support the institution of marriage (which is a framework for raising kids), reduce taxes paid by those folks, it is in affect subsidizing those folks and I'M not going to subsidize gay unions.

So based on these comments you do not mind supporting subsidizes, as long as gay don't get them. Well I think that they being forced(by law) to support this subsisity to a group of people who discriminate against them is pathetically and grossly wrong. Do you ever hear them complaining about subsidizing straight marriages with their tax money? Its good that they don't return the kind of hostility you exibit towards them huh.
If marriage was all that in this country, why does the government need to support it with subsidies? Shouldn't it be able to stand on its own strength without our governments help? There are several frameworks for raising kids, marriage is not the only one in his country.

And in this country (at least for now) I'm allowed to speak and vote on my beliefs (unlike most of the world, including Europe). So is every minority and immigrant citizen. I feel fortunate that the vast majority agree with me on this issue.

Just because a bunch of people agree with you, doesn't make it right or just. Its just mass bias, fear, ignorance and intolerance. A whole bunch of people buy and watch porn. Is that right and moral? A whole bunch of men seek out prostitutes, is that right and moral? A whole lot of women make their money stripping, does that make it right of moral. There are still alot of racist people in this country, is that right and moral?

It will never happen completely. Perfection is a myth.

I don't think anyone is looking for perfection, but better than current is a start.

Is it better that all be enslaved or some free? Since North Korea is enslaved does that mean that Britain should be too? And how do you think the Iraqis feel about the Declaration now?

Why can't we all be free? Why don't you ask Iraqis how they feel, instead of asking a puerto rican how I think they feel?

It doesn't matter if tv portrays them correctly or not - it shows our cultures' acceptance of them.

No it does not. It shows what the culture chooses to accept, not what is real. If it doesn't portray them correctly, then the cultures accessment of them is incorrect from the start. From what I have gleaned from my neighbors, what is seen on TV are gay caricatures, not real lives.

Tax breaks for the blind is actually oppression of the sighted? It goes to follow by your definition of oppression.

If you think that is true, then you don't really understand my definition of oppression.

And yes, even whites can be a special interest group - look at the definition again.

Can you please explain to me how a group of people who created the laws in this country, setup its justice system, constitution, etc for their own benefit and comfort can suddenly turn into a special interest group. They are more like the "controlling" interest group, let get real here!

When the gays have a lobbying office in Washington, and are actively lobbying to have their laws passed, what should I call it? The gay.... group of people desiring to have gay laws passed?

Since when is equality a "gay" law. And since when is seeking equality for everyone a gay agenda. Shouldn't it be EVERYONE"S agenda?

Is "dead white men" a label?

No, its a fact. They were all white, and they are all dead last I checked.

Within their Constitutional bounds. All else is tyranny.

Well it seems that eveyones interpretation of the constitution is quite different.

And I say..... If you are not man and wife, you cannot be called man and wife.

No, but you can be called a committed union.

They are all tied together. This is what I mean when I talk about the depravity of human nature.

A depravity that exist strongly even today. So much for the advancement of the human race. We can figure out how to go to the moon, invent some of the worst weapons in human history, but we cannot get along with somebody who is different than you are, even it it is only a skin color. Sad!

The slaves in the US might have had it better or worse in some situations. But to say a kid being multiply raped and beaten every day is worse than being squirted with a fire hose - I don't buy it.

So you think the extent of the abuse of blacks was only by water from a water from a hose? Black women were raped repeatedly. They were seperated from their children and families as were the men. The men were hung, and had the genitals cutoff. They were dragged here on boats where more of them died than made it. They were told they were animals, and were beaten accordingly. Their houses were burned down, towns of mostly blacks destroyed, and black men were killed for just looking at white women. Did you forget this, or just overlook it because it didn't drive your point home?

Already addressed, thanks RL!

You are just a little too quick to thank him. The rest of the world doesn't move, or make judgements based on what our supreme court decides. To the rest of the world jews are just part of a certain religion, not a race. If they were a race, then you couldn't study it, and become one. You couldn't marry into it, and convert. A white person that marries a black is still a white person. They cannot study black, and convert. Fortunately for us all RL doesn't hold the patent on the truth or fact.

That weakness is sure normal, right or wrong. I'm not saying that makes it OK. Let me ask it differently: If people are not born racist, then why is there no culture in all of history that has not been racist?

Have you ever heard of 5 or 6 year olds having race riots or disagreements? No, because they really do not have any real concept of race until they are taught. We have always had ignorant, fearful, stupid, narrow minded cultures throughout history. We have always had cultures that believed that they had to conquer in order to exist(europeans). If what you say is true that we are born racist, then why is my two closest friends white, and arab? Why does my family have whites(my grandmother) puerto ricans, dominicans, and blacks in it. Shouldn't we all by birth discriminate against each other if what you say is true? Science unfortunately doesn't support your notion. Racism is a leaned/taught behavior, and there are plenty of studies to support that.


[quoteBy their own actions, yes.
But by their oppressors? The Egyptians were FORCED to allow the Jews to leave, then chased them in an attempt to kill them. [/quote]

Sorry, they were not forced at all, they relented under the pressure of more plagues, death and destruction. Up to that point, they were very adimate about not allowing the jews to leave.

The early settlers were not being helped by their oppressors, but running from them.

I did not say their oppressor were helping them, I said some helped their own situations, and some were helped by their oppressors. This one falls under self help.

South African whites gave up power because they knew they had no choice - "The blacks are going to run us into the sea".

Your are wrong in this case. South Africa was faced with not only enternal pressure, but external pressure as well. For years they ignored the pleas of the black for equality in that country. It took the sanctions from the UN starting in 1977, and further strengthened
in later years, the outcry of the world, and internal struggles from inside to destroy apartheid. All of these things, especially the embargo on computers and equipment to help the South African police and military that really took it's toll.

Even the south in this country was forced to give up slavery at the end of a gun. And as Lincoln said, if I can save the Union by keeping slavery, I will do it, If I can save the Union by getting rid of slavery, I will do it. It is an abberation - anyone who reads history can verify this.

Mr. Lincoln great approach, it's about the union, not about slavery, or the peoples lives it negatively effected. Yes, in the times when societies believed in world domination, yes freedom and equality would be an abberation.

Not exactly prejudiced against whites. Are you willing to say you have NO prejudices? I'm not - I've learned that I do in spite of myself.

Oh, I have prejudices alright, but not against races. I am biased against people who have biases against people of different races and sexuality. I have biases against people who think the oppression and discrimination is perfectly okay. I have biases against people who turn human suffering into plain history as a way of distancing themselves from the benefits they currently receive. I have prejudices against people who SAY on thing, and DO another. I have prejudices against people who use God, and the word of God to bolster their prejudices against people of different races and sexualties. So no, I am not without prejudices, they are just not race based.

Ahp! You said: "This was the only period of slavery where a RACIAL motivation was the key. . All other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations. They were inslaved for debt, their countries were conquered, or they violated the law of the time..."
Well the Europeans conquered much of Africa, including Great Britain, and it was Great Britain who allowed slavery to grow in this county - not the USA - so therefore the slaves came from conquered nations, mostly. However American slavery was racial, absolutely.

Pete, this country is not Great Britain, and this country(US) was not at war with Africa. We were trying to escape the influence of the Great Britian, and Europe as a whole. It takes people to buy slave in order for it to prosper. To attempt to push this on Great Britain is disengenious, it was the slave owners in THIS country that cause slavery to prosper. Great Britian couldn't have allowed anything if there was no market for it.

I would call this hidden racism, but it's lessening over the years, cause the one color means more than any other - green . Those who do not go to doctors are included - via inclusion in fatalities and relapses and such, and the fact that they go to the doctors eventually, or emergency rooms. Most of the poor do not practice preventitive medicine.

I know you would like to think it is lessening, but in fact is not according to the New England Journal. It has been consistant over the last 20 years with no sign of lessoning at all. Money is not a player in this, as even affluent blacks get lower quality health care than affluent whites. Its a racial thing period.
If you are poor in this country, there is no way you can practice preventive medicine. Its just too expensive without insurance.

So, it's awful the US has slavery in it's history, and the Declaration is a hollow lie 'cause of gay prejudice and lingering racism, but the violent, bloody history of Mexico doesn't count? What's going on in southern Mexico right now?

I don't really give a damn what is happening in Mexico, I am talking about in this country where we have a multitude of racial problems of our own. The Mexican government has to deal with their own issues, and its their internal affairs. They are not going around conquering OTHER countries, and enslaving those people. What they are doing to their citizens is cruel, but nothing like the Europeans, and their effects in Africa and the middle east.

I consider any revenge cruel and petty - it's sure not enlightned!

Neither is the act that perpetuates revenge, but that doesn't stop many people.

I wasn't specifying Mexicans. This comes back to human nature - any student of history would expect revenge and be very, very surprised if it DIDN'T happen.

Revenge is not part of all human nature, some of us find revenge as big a time waster as the original act that perpetuates revenge.

Human nature is not limited to whites.

Oh, but whites(specifically european whites) do have a unique "human nature" where they believe they should be atop of the food chain, and everyone else should be under. History supports that. Look at Africa, the Middle East, and this country for excellent examples. There are always exceptions to this unique "human nature", but they have been minorities.

My recognition of the facts here does not make me "casual" towards them. I have spent many, many years studying history. Recognition of the facts, however unpleasant, makes ones' attempt to deal with the issues more likely to succeed.

Then this would explain why race relations in this country have changed, but not improved. We have refused to recognize the facts, and therefore not dealt effectively with the problem.

No, it was a case study during the AA ballot measure out in LA. I think it was newsweek, or US News?

You will have to be more specific, I work in LA and I have not seen, or heard of any such ballot measure. You see plenty of black postal workers in their huge distribution centers there, and you see them on the street delivering mail. Hispanic do work in the post office, just not in the numbers you see blacks. Hispanics rule in the service oriented job such as restaurants, field workers. There is positively no evidence that I can see that blacks and hispanics are battling for the same jobs.

Hey this is what the whole world needs - plain talk. Seriously. I have argued the case for AA with many people for the reasons you have stated. This really underlines the complexity of "colorblindness". It's not just whites, although 'cause they've been in control the effect is the worst.

I agree, its not just whites, black IMO are just as guilty as the whites. I say that because when you do find a white willing to extend their hands towards some blacks, they are rebuffed. This is mostly out of anger and distrust, but its not helpful in the long run.

What gets white folks going is like this: The Cleveland Orchestra needed to improve it's racial makeup. No problem. But they DON'T CARE about skin color - they just want the best of the best.They don't care if one is bright purple. Solution: The musician auditions behind a screen. That's colorblind. But wait - they get sued by the NAACP. Doesn't that type of thing actually hurt the AA cause? And yes, I understand that the majority of minorities ( ) may understand this, but why didn't they speak up?

I am not aware of Cleveland as a specific case, but I know this, blacks are totally underrepresented in many american city orchestras. I was talking to Michael Morgan who is musical director of the Oakland symphony orchestra, a orchestra that I have recorded alot since locating there in 1999 on a permanent basis. He says blacks do not fair very well in even blind auditions, when I asked why, he says "Some of the orchestras have a screened first round of auditions and a not-screened second round. If a black player made it into the second round, they’d have a hard time being hired. "(a possible reason for the lawsuit) When pushed further, he states that many orchestra have a predominately white audience, and the board of directors do not know how they will react when they see more black principle players. He went on to tell me that many large city orchestra don't sponser mini or youth orchestras, string ensembles, or operatic companies in inner cities because that is not where their markets are. It is in the affluent white suburbs(more racist thinking). Here in Oakland(where the majority of the population is black) our orchestra sells out is 3000 seat hall almost every concert. So much for blacks not appreciating classical music! The interesting thing is black opera singers do great, but male opera singer do not. Has nothing to do with their talent and ability, there are not that many roles that white directors would take a chance with a black male. It doesn't look right to them. Black women do not have a problem playing roles initally cast for white women though.

Let me assure you they were NOT united. It is a miracle the US came into being. Many, if not most, did not consider Blacks animals.

Apparently those with the most influence and power did think of blacks as animals. Why would those(if they were so upstanding) sign a document that said one thing, but meant another if they didn't believe that it was so. What happen to your majority rules argument in this case? Were they just not property owners?

And if one is prejudiced against, say, Brazilians (lol), don't you think that person would look at a Brazilian writers' comments from 100 years ago with a prejudiced eye?

If it produced the same results as the comments written here 100 years ago here, then perhaps.

Yes, a minority, but probably bigger then you think. Many did not care for social standing - many were Christians first. Fearless. And they got enough power - eventually.

Not enough to undo the damage that was done, or even really help the situation significantly. From what I read, they did more talking than anything else, which IMO rendered them completely ineffective. Talk is cheap, actions change things.

You know, that's a silly statement. What are you basing your information on? The written word.

So they wrote one thing, signed something contrary to what they wrote, and you believed anything they said? Wow, I am not that trusting of someone so inconsistant. If they believed in what they signed, but did nothing when it was not inacted as they believed it would be, then they should have done something about it. Their inaction makes them indirectly part of the problem.

That was in response to your statement: "This is why I have no respect for the "dead white guys" They were lying, deciteful men, that only men like them could respect."

I stand by that statement.

Which Indians? The 1st ones here, or the ones that took that tribes' land, or the 50 after that?

Doesn't matter one bit what tribe, this land belonged to the Indians long before a white man ever stepped foot on it. Whether it was the Cherokee, Blackfoote, or whatever. Even if it was the 50 after that, it is still their land that was stolen, they were slaughtered, and what survived now suffers from the highest percentage of alcoholism in this country. IMO they were treated 50 million times worse than the blacks, and that is really telling.

I don't recall the European gov't giving away land to regular folks. And if that's true, when did we defeat that new aristocracy and set up our current gov't?

Do you mean to tell me that the earlier settlers came here with a land deed in their hands?. How did they become land owners in a new country? What did they do, kill the indians, and take claim to the land? Just how did this country's forefather become land owners? The answer lies in the third question, they killed the indians and took over their land. How did they decide who got land? People with stature and land in the Old World thus usually became part of the upper class in the New World as well. Since generally only the distinguished members of the community were eligible of offering service to the local community, the second standard for the distribution of land obviously helped more affluent immigrants from England maintain their social and economic status.

Which country handles it better?

None, since owning slaves based on race is evil and sick. Your approach is the lesser of the evils approach, mine is little or no evil at all.

How many sub-cultures do you think exist in China? And southern Spain was Moorish for a looong time. Yes and what about Ghengis Khan. We were simply the first to develop the tools neccessary to do it on a worldwide scale. This doesn't jive with history.

You man not agree with me, but its a fact. White Europeans have destroyed more cultures and races than any other group of people on this planet. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

This is not a racial viewpoint.

Bull, of course it is a racial viewpoint. Who are you fooling, yourself?

If no ones' asking me to change the definition of marriage, what on earth are we talking about?

We are talking about giving committed gay couples that same federal benefits as committed straight couples. Or, eliminating any benefits to anyone.

Interesting that other cultures in the past that embraced the gays were on their way out - they destroyed themselves.

You would be hard pressed to blame that soley on their acceptance of gays. There were alot more things going on in those instances. Only the most narrow of minds would blame that solely on the gays.

Who is "us". It's ok for cultures all over the world to be rotten, dirty, violent and corrupt but if we don't OK gay "marriage" we're worse than them.

Replace "gay marriage" with equality and you are right, we are worse than them. We hold ourselves, and pride ourselves as being the most civilized country in this world, yet we cannot seem to provide equality for everyone. Keep in mind, our government is just as dirty and rotten, and just as corrupt as any other government. Apartheid lasted as long as it did because of old europe, and this country lack of UN support with sanctions on South
Africa. It was large US corporations that furnished the equipment that allowed the SA government to retain a hold of power even though whites were outnumber 18-1 in that country. You europeans do stick together!

droves
plural noun
a large group, especially of people, moving towards a place
______
Is anyone going to deny we've got people beating our doors in?

Do really need your words, I would like statistics to support your claims.

Nope, they're being spied on because people that hide or are encouraged by that community have killed our citizens.

So you blame them all for the actions of a few. So what if I said that because a few whites are racists, then they all proabably are. Would that be right? Did you do the same thing when Timothy Macvay did what he did?

Right! Because WE made the decision to take them out. Which everybody screamed about, and "showed" our evil intent.

You are wrong here. Nobody was really screaming in this case at all. We had broad support for getting Osama out of afghanistan. Both visual support, and silent behind the scenes support. Where they screamed about is Iraq, a place to which we had no business being, and still don't.

It is not institutional anymore, only private. A black guy, one of my adult teachers reiterated the statement to me, "you can't legislate a mans' heart".

Wrong again Peter. When you have the statistics that I state above, it is institutional. If this was happening only in private business, then you have a argument. But this stretches from the board room, to the health care system, to the federal government itself(The justice department has a abysmal record of promoting qualified blacks) to the educational system and to housing. Have you noticed that we have only had white presidents and vice presidents?

So do you think censorship should be used to correct Americas' image abroad? And those gays are living HERE. Why not at home?

No, truth and true equality can do that, no need to alter or omit the facts to improve an image. The answer to the second part is they were born here. Would you move to another country of gays suddently were allowed to marry? I don't think so. Just because they are here doesn't mean they like the way things are. Blacks are an excellent example of that.

Excellent. I don't underestimate them. But I'm not scared either. Because they are ruled by cartels their system will calcify.

You have no way of knowing this unless you can fore tell the future. The oil market is run by cartels too, do you see it going up in smoke anytime soon?

[quote] Ours will not as long as we can close some businesses and open new ones.{/quote]

Wrong again. Excessive debt, and the dependants on foreign investment can lead to the end of life in America as we know it. We just better pray to God that Japan, Europe, and Canada don't stop investing in the country, or the game is over.

. And manufacturing jobs in this country have been declining for 50 years - we've moved past that stage a while back.

And in doing so we have all but killed the middle class which needed these jobs to prosper.

Yes, but you do have the option of living here in the first place. We have a saying among States, "voting with your feet". If we don't like the gov't in one state we are free to move to another.

As long as there is FEDERAL law, moving to another state is useless. If there was a film industry in Great Britian, I would be there in a second.

If we really believe the US is an awful blight on the face of the earth why would we continue living here, given the choice, knowing you are contributing to it?

Putting words in ones mouth never helps further a point. I never said the US was an awful blight on the face of the earth, it just doesn't live up to the promise of its declaration of independence, nor its constitution. My contribution to it was to work and march against two racist propositions here in California. My contribution to this country is to go to elementary and high schools and talk frankly about the pitfals and pains of racism. That is my choice. Yours based on this thread is to use history to toilet paper over the pain and agony of slave life here in America. Oh, we owned them, but we treated them better than other times of slavery...riiiiiight!!!!

They can pretend to be married if they wish. I am willing to give them all the rights of committed straight couples - but not married ones.

Pretend to be married, I don't think so. They are committed, but they seem well aware based on denial of benefits, inequality, and recognition that they are not married. I am sure they will thank you for your kind, but not really helpful gift {sarcasm off}

So protecting kids should not be a State concern, but giving gays marriage should be?

If marriage was so sacred that it could not be extended to gays, then why should IT be protected by the state? And why should the tax dollars of gays go to supporting something they are denied?
If kids were protected by the state, then why are so many of them neglicted or dying in state care? Equality for all SHOULD be a concern for everyone. Once again, marriage is not the issue here, equal rights and benefits are. (for the thousandth time)

Oh yes it is up to me and like-minded Citizens - this is a Democracy.

And because it is a democracy, you don't. Its not wise to think you have more power than you do.

And yes we can make demands on their motivation.

Get real Pete, in a democracy no you cannot. Their motivation is often unspoken, and when it is, you have no right to derail what they do. Once they are here, their motivation for being here cannot be controlled unless it is crime.

And many immigrants have that "pie-in-the-sky perspective". And I'll say it again - why are you contributing to this travesty, this "bias and prejudice this country is so well known for", if you don't have to?

My contribution is against bias and prejudice. When is the last time you walked into a school and talked openly about the issue? When is the last time you walked in protest to something you KNEW was unfair and bias? Immigrants may come here with that pie-in-the-sky mentality, but it is quickly erased by the realities of life here for minorities. Now if you came from europe(where it is easier to get citizenship if you originate from here as opposed to Mexico and Latin America) then you may maintain that mentality because assimulation is easier.

Unless they're dead white guys. But OK, I will call them "relationships".

How generous of you!

Try google. If that doesn't work (I'd be amazed) try a library. They used to burn cities to the ground, kill all inhabitants, and salt the ground so nothing would grow.

When you make a claim, it is up to you to support that claim with evidence.

Honestly T, I hope they do surprise me. Where are the Aztec, Incas?

The spanish, aided by ignorance of the spanish army is what destroyed the Aztecs. The Incas were crippled by disease brought to their country by europeans, their fighting numbers were depleted. Also it was the in the Inca's culture to capture their enemies. The spanish wanted to kill and destroy.

Why didn't the Mexicans assimilate the Apache indians? Why was Mexico called an Empire, until fairly recently?

The apache were a nomadic tribe, and travelled a great deal following buffalo. Much of the land they were on was owned by the spanish, not Mexico. Mexico hasn't been an empire since getting independence from Spain in 1821, you call recently 185 years?

I do recognise the bias. I do not believe it to be wholly unfounded. It does effect me, which is partly why I'm writing this book with you .

Pete, I would be curious to know how bias has effected you. I have asked several of my white friends this question, and they couldn't think of a single way it has effected them negatively. Now if I were to ask my parents(well actually my god-parents who adopted me), my grandmother, and great-grandmother how it effected them, I would be with them night and day for years listening.

I believe rioters should be shot. Not protesters, though . Just because someone doesn't get their way doesn't give them the right to riot.

I used to agree with you until I realized that people riot because no one is listening to their peaceful protest. The riots in Los Angeles in 1992 came from the fact that blacks in the city have been complaining about police abuse for years, and no one listened. That goes for the riots in Cincinnati and Miami also. When you peacefully protest, and no one listens, riots follow. When you see your poeple unjust incarcerated or killed, you have to do something.

There is a resolution - an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage. This is what I want.
Pete

That would equal federally sponsored discrimination. You call that a solution? Geez no wonder this country cannot shake it history of bias and discrimination. With solutions like that, and people who think that is an answer, this country will enjoy an equally biased and discriminatory future as it has its past.

[piece-it pete]

Sir Terrence,

I think we have both stated our positions clearly, so there is no reason to continue imo. I don't think we have anything further to say!

I also think we've proved that decent men (or women) can disagree. You have obviously made fighting the things you feel strongly about important, and I applaud you - no patronising. Most don't.

It would do us both good to remember that we would both seem a bit different in person. I for one would enjoy it, so if you ever find yourself coming to or through the "mistake on the lake" drop me a line. We can eat some polluted fish while drinking Burning River Brew - in Lakewood Ohio .

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir Terrence,

I think we have both stated our positions clearly, so there is no reason to continue imo. I don't think we have anything further to say!

I also think we've proved that decent men (or women) can disagree. You have obviously made fighting the things you feel strongly about important, and I applaud you - no patronising. Most don't.

It would do us both good to remember that we would both seem a bit different in person. I for one would enjoy it, so if you ever find yourself coming to or through the "mistake on the lake" drop me a line. We can eat some polluted fish while drinking Burning River Brew - in Lakewood Ohio .

Pete

If I ever do get around to Lakewood OH, I will sure let you know. If you ever come to the bay area, I can convince my bud Woochifer to join us in mercury laden fish from the bay. I wouldn't mind poisening myself with such a formidable debater!!!

[JohnMichael]

As a gay man in a long term committed relationship yes I would like legal protection and recognition. My partner and I work hard, pay taxes, vote and contribute to our community. Our relationship is based on mutual love, respect and trust. We are better together than apart. We have the same needs, hopes and desires as straight couples. I have never asked a straight person why they are straight. It is very natural for them as my being gay is natural for me. The emotional bonds and committment we have are as strong as any hetero marriage. We would now like to be legally recognized as a couple. When we invest together, buy a home and acquire all the things a couple does in their time together a surving spouse could lose it all upon the death of a partner to the family of the deceased spouse. We could be refused involvement in healthcare and end of life decisions. We want to live quietly and peacefully to nurture our relationship and improve our audio system.

[bjornb17]

If we start down this road(AGAIN)of picking and chosing who get's equal rights, and who doesn't, then we might as well go back to black and white schools, water fountains, entrances to hotels, and every other unpleasantness that goes with discrimination.

The last time i checked, everybody had the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex. So it is equal rights

[JohnMichael]

The last time i checked, everybody had the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex. So it is equal rights

That would be great if everyone wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not everyone does so it is not equal rights.

[davidb]

Sir Terrence, much as you might like to elevate yourself in your mind to some lofty perch where you can look down on those whose judgement is affected by bias, descrimination, and prejudice, judging by your writings in this thread you're right down with the rest of them/us. Go back and read your posts and see how many times you grouped all Europeans (past, present, and their descendants) so as to imply that any negative behaviors and actions perpetrated by anyone white are somehow damning of anyone who is in any way connected to the continent.

And the double standards abound! You claim that Europeans (i.e. white people) are unique in that they beleive themselves to be a master race, and that all other people and their needs should be subjugated to them. I can't think of ANY race that does not now, or has not at some point believed (and tried to assert) itself to be the master race or culture. European dominance is simply a bit closer to home.

One of your more rediculous assertions is the notion that Europeans have a UNIQUE predisposition to go around destroying other cultures. You back that up with the facts that other cultures didn't invade Europe. It may well be that they never attacked Europe, but does that change the facts that Japan has tried to stamp out both China and Korea, African nations and cultures frequently try to exterminate each other, and many (if not all) Muslim countries would collectively like to see Israel and all its inhabitants wiped out?

The fact is, historically speaking, every culture has had the desire to place itself atop the food chain, and has done so if they had the means to. The thing that , in the past, seperated the European nations was the fact that they had the ABILITY to dominate. The fact that they were predisposed to to desire to do so didn't make them any different from anybody else.
Furthermore, much as you may hate to admit it, the thing that makes us, in this modern age, historically unique is the fact that we have the means, but lack the desire, to dominate as we would see fit.

"Sorry, they were not forced at all, they relented under the pressure of more plagues, death and destruction."
Call me crazy, but I would say that giving in to a demand under extreme duress qualifies as being forced. If I wanted you to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and to facilitate this I proceeded to scare the crap out of you, attack your health and your food supply, and kill your firstborn son, and assured you that the hurt would only escalate until you caved, (and you KNEW there was nothing you or anyone else could do to stop me) and you finally voted as I wished, would you say that you had been forced, or that I had presented a very compelling argument? The Egyptians had the wrathful, biblical, smite-tastic equivalent of a gun to their heads. Their option was basically to let them go then and there, or have them leave of their own accord when they (Egyptians) were destroyed utterly by the holy wrath of God. Not forced at all?? How much more "forced" does it get?

Good discussion, btw, I'm pretty impressed with the debating abilities of both sides, but STT, you need to get off the whole "I'm only biased against people who descriminate" high horse. First of all, it's not true, and nobody expects it to be. Descrimination is not inherently evil, it is a tool that all possess and almost all misuse. Descrimination as a close synonym to "judgement", that is, not descrimination as all the various and sundry "isms". You can certainly descriminate without being a racist, sexist, whatever it is you're afraid of being. Don't take that personally , none of us want to be those things, but the fact is that we all suffer from it to some degree, so to try to convince people that you are speaking from such a moral high ground is nonproductive at best.

P.S. In advance, if this post didn' t really form a coherent thought or seemed like a personal attack, please remember that it's like 4:00 in the morning as I type. Cut me some slack!

[piece-it pete]

That would be great if everyone wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not everyone does so it is not equal rights.

John,

Marriage is by definition 1 man, 1 woman, so how can you be married? That's like me saying I want to be a woman, and not every man wants to be a man so it's not equal rights unless I am treated like one.

No I am not poking fun with that example, it's valid. We are discussing gender related issues.

I was going to let this go but imho decent folks like yourself (I assume ) are the strongest argument for gay "marriage". I'll let it go with this:

All issues you mentioned in your post are addressed through current legal vehicles; and

Loosening nuclear families has always historically been in the twilight of various civilizations. I don't know if it's a cause or symptom (though I suspect both). It doesn't matter, it needs to be fought vigorously - by you, too, because I'm not arguing to throw you in jail or out of the pale of society, and that in itself is a historical abberation - to protect fellow and future homosexuals from the historically regular state of persecution.

Pete

[Resident Loser]

...hey pete, I can't believe this ancient thread is still chugging along...thought I'd add some fuel to the fire just to keep it fresh...

jimHJJ(...'round and 'round she goes...you hetero sexist...)

[bjornb17]

i guess i'll contribute to this since i have nothing better to do at the moment.

I'm a person with very conservative views. But at the same time, I'm a person who realizes that my views are not the best views for everyone. If gay people want to get married, just let them damnit. It's not like we all have to marry people of the same sex if gay marriage was allowed. It's a personal decision.

I'm happy with my girlfriend, thank you very much And if i want to marry her, thats our decision. If gay people want to get married, well just let them, it's their decision. It's not like they're going to have lots of gay babies

far too often, stubborn people think their views are the best. Very few people are willing to accept a different mindset than their own, and believe that everything they dont agree with is somehow wrong.

People need to become more politically moderate.

[JohnMichael]

John,

Marriage is by definition 1 man, 1 woman, so how can you be married? That's like me saying I want to be a woman, and not every man wants to be a man so it's not equal rights unless I am treated like one.

No I am not poking fun with that example, it's valid. We are discussing gender related issues.

I was going to let this go but imho decent folks like yourself (I assume ) are the strongest argument for gay "marriage". I'll let it go with this:

All issues you mentioned in your post are addressed through current legal vehicles; and

Loosening nuclear families has always historically been in the twilight of various civilizations. I don't know if it's a cause or symptom (though I suspect both). It doesn't matter, it needs to be fought vigorously - by you, too, because I'm not arguing to throw you in jail or out of the pale of society, and that in itself is a historical abberation - to protect fellow and future homosexuals from the historically regular state of persecution.

Pete

First off definitions of words change. Marriage will one day mean two consenting adults who love and respect each other. As far as loosening the nuclear family that has already been done with high divorce rates. Look how many single parent homes there are in this country. The nuclear family is loose. The institution of heterosexual marriage is crumbling.

[bjornb17]

First off definitions of words change. Marriage will one day mean two consenting adults who love and respect each other. As far as loosening the nuclear family that has already been done with high divorce rates. Look how many single parent homes there are in this country. The nuclear family is loose. The institution of heterosexual marriage is crumbling.

also, quite a large number of people who get married dont end up having kids anyway.

marriage is becoming more of a mutual commitment between people rather than an institution for raising a family.

[Resident Loser]

...I must disagree, Bjorn, quite emphatically...NO WE DON'T!!!

One of the problems with society in general, is the "everybody get's a gold star" mentality. Not every concept has equal weight or bearing...the whole PC viewpoint is rendering the general populace into a namby-pamby bunch of mindless dolts, dictated to by politicians, celebrities and the media.

It's time for the public to get it's head out of it's collective @$$ and take a position, any position, and voice it...conflict results in progress, moderation in mediocrity.

jimHJJ(...life ain't a popularity contest...)

[shokhead]

First off definitions of words change. Marriage will one day mean two consenting adults who love and respect each other. As far as loosening the nuclear family that has already been done with high divorce rates. Look how many single parent homes there are in this country. The nuclear family is loose. The institution of heterosexual marriage is crumbling.

So now because gays want something we should change the definitions of words to fit them? Thats such a load of crap,i'll never get it cleaned up.

[shokhead]

That would be great if everyone wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not everyone does so it is not equal rights.

Not everything has to be or is equal.
The mutual relation of HUSBAND and WIFE.
MEN and WOMEN are joined.
Purpose of maintaining a family.

I have a saying. If you have to have a parade, then there's something wrong with being gay.

[GMichael]

I was originally against gay marriage. But as I read through this thread I changed my mind. Strangely though, it had nothing to do with anything anyone said FOR it. They didn't say anything I wasn't expecting. But after reading what the other people against it had to say, I started to realize how ridiculous I must have sounded.

[JohnMichael]

Not everything has to be or is equal.
The mutual relation of HUSBAND and WIFE.
MEN and WOMEN are joined.
Purpose of maintaining a family.

I have a saying. If you have to have a parade, then there's something wrong with being gay.

We have a parade for the same reason as the veterans and the Shriners. We are proud and want the community to know we are here. If you follow your logic about a man and a woman for maintaining family should every marriage that does not create children be disbanded. I am sorry no matter how much you love your wife you can not impregnate her so she will have to leave you and marry a man that can. Or if the wife can't get pregnant you will be given a different wife. As society becomes more enlightened we correct the wrongs of previous generations. We have learned the importance of equal rights and that everyone brings value to society. The ideas of people of color going to seperate schools or riding on the back of a bus or women not being able to vote seems abhorent to us now. And a little embarrassing. As more states and countries approve gay marriages another minority is achieving equal rights.